Skip to main content

Table 1 Frequency of primary and secondary endpoints used in the studies analysed. The “Top-12” of the used parameters are indicated in Bold-type

From: Outcomes in video laryngoscopy studies from 2007 to 2017: systematic review and analysis of primary and secondary endpoints for a core set of outcomes in video laryngoscopy research

 

Outcome Name

Number of Matches

Percent Age

Column Name

Time

Time to intubation (#1)

245

65,86%

P1

Time to glottic view (#2)

36

9,68%

P9

Endotracheal tube insertion time

18

4,84%

P15

TTSIa on the first attempt

11

2,96%

P18

Time to ventilation after intubation

7

1,88%

P23

Total time of chest compression interruption during ETIb

2

0,54%

P36

Time to supraglottic ventilation

1

0,27%

P38

Views

Laryngeal view grade (CL AND/OR POGO c ) (#3)

167

44,89%

P2

Intubation Success

Successful intubation rate (#4)

136

36,56%

P3

Successful first-pass intubation rate (#5)

71

19,09%

P6

Ease of intubation (subjective scoring) d (#6)

48

12,90%

P7

Failed intubation

23

6,18%

P11

Intubation difficulty score (IDS)

22

5,91%

P12

Factors complicating intubatione

11

2,96%

P19

Proportion of difficult intubation

6

1,61%

P25

DoubleLumenTube position

4

1,08%

P27

Successful tracheal intubation rate after failed initial laryngoscopy

4

1,08%

P28

Intubation success rate in patients with difficult laryngoscopy predictors

2

0,54%

P32

Reason for intubation failure

2

0,54%

P34

Likelihood of successful intubation

2

0,54%

P35

Adequate ETTf position

1

0,27%

P41

Factors that affect FPSg in trauma patients

1

0,27%

P43

Proportion of successful to failed intubations

1

0,27%

P45

Accuracy of correct unilateral placement

1

0,27%

P48

Number of attempts

Number of intubation attempts (#7)

87

23,39%

P4

Number of tube insertions

2

0,54%

P37

Complications

Complications h (#8)

79

21,24%

P5

Dental compression AND number of audible dental click sounds (#9)

24

6,45%

P14

Severity of force applied to the upper airway

10

2,69%

P20

Variables reflecting morbidityi

6

1,61%

P24

Potential laryngeal trauma

2

0,54%

P33

Gagging severity score at the time of best laryngeal visualization

1

0,27%

P44

Device use & operator variables

Optimization manoeuvres AND use of airway back-up devices (#10)

48

12,90%

P8

Device difficult score

20

5,38%

P13

Device preference

9

2,42%

P21

Overall participant satisfaction

7

1,88%

P22

Ergonomicsj

3

0,81%

P29

Postural analysis

3

0,81%

P30

Learning process

3

0,81%

P31

Reasons for using methods other than McGrath MAC video laryngoscope

1

0,27%

P39

Practitioner experience

1

0,27%

P49

Monitoring

Haemodynamic parameters (#11)

30

8,06%

P10

Lowest arterial oxygen saturation (#12)

13

3,49%

P16

Cervical vertebral angle

12

3,23%

P17

SpO2 immediately after removing the blade from the patient

1

0,27%

P40

Bispectral index score

1

0,27%

P46

Intraocular pressure

1

0,27%

P47

Other

Airway gradek

6

1,61%

P26

Intubation conditionsl

1

0,27%

P42

  1. aTime to successful intubation
  2. bEndotracheal intubation
  3. cCormack-Lehane score and Percentage Of Glottic Opening
  4. dmainly a visual analogue scale score ranging from 1 (extremely easy) to 10 (extremely difficult) with several exceptions (e.g, numerical rating scale 1  =  the easiest, 5  =  the most difficult)
  5. ee.g., visualization difficulty related to obscured view from fogging, secretions or blood in the airway; difficulty passing the tracheal tube past the vocal cords; inappropriate endotracheal tube size for the patient; or difficulty controlling the direction of the tracheal tube using the video display
  6. fEndotracheal tube
  7. gFirst-pass success
  8. hPre- and post-intubation correlated complictions (e.g., upper airway morbidity, swallowing difficulties or any dental injuries)
  9. ie.g., in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay, ICU mortality, etc
  10. jBiomechanical performance of doctors during the ETI (e.g., assessed using surface electromyography and inertial measurement units)
  11. kAirway assessment predictors: Mallampati test, mouth opening, thyromental distance, cervical flexion-extension, and neck thickness, snoring, retrognathia, and other types of anomalies also considered as predictors of a difficult airway
  12. lEase of Laryngoscopy, Vocal cords position, Reaction to insertion of the tracheal tube and cuff inflation (Diaphragmatic movement/coughing), direction of the ETT by the forceps and advancement of the ETT by the forceps
Back to article page

BMC Anesthesiology

ISSN: 1471-2253

Contact us